Thursday, December 11, 2008

Last week we wrote about the shitsite Little Green Footballs, a website fit only for the criminally insane. The Internet is full of terrible corners like that, and today we examine one of the places you should avoid like herpez.

The Corner is the group blog for a collection of circle-jerkers at National Review Online. The NRO mission statement is: "what's with these homos and poor people we see everywhere? enuff already. do not want. ALSO, all those Muslims are really getting on my nerves hey honey where's my gun?" They don't punctuate very well.

Every time Drudge posts some stupid link about some idiot in Iran saying, "we still want to kill Israel" the Corner erupts in calls for collective punishment against all Muslims. From a post today:

Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran ...but only in retaliation [Mark Steyn]

From Reuters:

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama plans to offer Israel a strategic pact designed to fend off any nuclear attack on the Jewish state by Iran, an Israeli newspaper reported on Thursday.

Which all sounds very nice, but implicit in such a "pledge" is that the United States now accepts that Iran's going nuclear and there's nothing anyone can (or will) do about it. That's a significant shift.

Isn't that great? The title hilariously implies that we should already be bombing Iran. Those guys are so brave. And then here's the post right below that one:

Obama Offers Israelis a Nuke Umbrella? [Michael Ledeen]

Ha'aretz reports that Obama will offer Israeli a nuclear umbrella vs. Iran. The "reporter" wonders if that means Obama has accepted the inevitability of an Iranian nuke. Yes, of course I blogged on it.

Implying, again, that instead of accepting that, Obama should've already killed them all even though he's not president yet. The good news for these shitsacks, though, is that Obama has promised to kill as many Iranians as necessary if any Israelis sprain an ankle.

3 comments:

I hate to say it, but your reaction to these stories is classically socialized behavior.

There is NO Iranian nuclear threat. All this talk is politics. Everyone wants the Jewish American vote, hence the "I'm Israel's strongest ally" posturing.

The US does not accept that Iran is going nuclear. Obama will pander to anyone with a dollar to offer, hence this strategic defense plan for israel, an extension of his humiliating AIPAC speech shortly after the nomination.

I'm beginning to think no one takes my points seriously. So, how about a hard dose of reality from none other than the US Government! This is from the Director of National Inteligence, concerning Iran's nuclear weapons program:

-We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

-We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

-We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

-Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.

(source: www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf)

So, any program was halted in 2003 - according to the very same US government that is jamming this Muslim-peril talk down everyone's throats. For the record, I support Iran getting a nuclear weapon, as they have every right to unless, of course, it is assumed the United States controls Iran (and it is). For every islamic cleric you an quote about Israel, I will find two quotes from within the Israeli government salivating over the thought of a preemptive strike against Iran.

Obama offering a "nuclear umbrella" is just further proof of his progressive, idealistic ideology.

I'm assuming your final comment was sarcastic, so I'll pass on that one for now and instead begin at the beginning.

As for my "classically socialized behavior," as you so respectfully put it, I'm not sure what you're talking about, or what point you think I'm making.

What little comment I offered on those stories seemed pretty clear to me. The Corner is, was, and will continue to be a place for neo-con war mongers to play soldier and call for preemptive military action against sovereign nations pursuing entirely legal actions. Hence, the mocking.

As far as commenting on Obama's stance, I only wrote in the last sentence that it is good news for these crazies that Obama is employing the exact same foreign policy rhetoric as US Presidents always do. When taken in the context of the post as a whole, that is hardly a ringing endorsement of Obama's position.

You wrote that, "there is NO Iranian nuclear threat," as though I had claimed there were. I did not, and I explicitly mocked the idea that this so-called threat is real. That was the purpose of the line about Drudge posting bullshit stories and The Corner erupting in demands for Muslim blood.

Again, I'm not sure what point you thought I was making, but your comment doesn't refute anything I wrote. I didn't claim Iran was a nuclear threat, I didn't claim that the US accepted that Iran was going nuclear, and I certainly never endorsed Obama's pandering to AIPAC, which is truly one of the foulest and most destructive rites of passage for all American politicians.

I guess then, put your quotes in italics because when I read it the nested formatting (especially when viewing the article on the comments submission page) lead me to believe this was your line: "... implicit in such a "pledge" is that the United States now accepts that Iran's going nuclear and there's nothing anyone can (or will) do about it" Since it certainly didn't sound like it was from Reuters.

But, if you didn't write that, then I have nothing to add. Although NRO, The Corner, etc are really meaningless entities. The only institutions to be wary of are the ones with power - and that would be the government. Obama, being positioned to carry out policy, is a real threat - unlike NR - and more emphasis shoudl be placed on the pathology of his foreign policy. Which, as you agree (while still supporting the candidate?), is unambiguously deranged.